About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 8, Antonini 5, Ncd 4, Moore 4, Sugaya 3, Wu 2, Borden 2, Hillis 2, Ms. Hayward 2, Usf 2, Stephanie Tucker 2, California 2, San Francisco 2, Rubin 1, Junius 1, Tim Cohen 1, Imp 1, Fong 1, Haight 1, Christina Olague 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 2, 2012
    1:30 - 2:00am PST  

1:30am
presentation. i'm available for questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? good afternoon, commissioners. tim cohen on behalf of the housing action coalition. i'm just a little history. we worked over a period of several years collaboratively with a lot of the stakeholders, elected officials, city agencies, schools, housing builders in ways that we could craft the ordinances that were carried and passed by the city, by supervisor dufty and wiener. and we're therefore puzzled that from what we can tell, no outreach whatsoever has been made to any of the schools or potential housing builders who might be possibly affected by this proposed ordinance.
1:31am
and i think that at a minimum they might have been consulted for their views on ways to address legitimate city interest about housing and how student housing is supposed to work in the city. we don't think that the staff report -- it's a good start, but we don't think it's there yet. we think it needs more work. and it's not clear to us at this point why this ordinance has been proposed. student housing already reports -- and this is the work we did. it has clear reporting requirements to the mayor's office of housing. in addition, schools are required to have institutional master plan. and this appears to be a duplicative unnecessary third layer of reporting. and not sure to what purpose. we've always supported the monitoring and reporting of student housing that takes advantage of the exemptions in the ordinance such as inclusionary housing, f.a.r. bonuses and dwelling unit
1:32am
mixes. but this would require additional reporting on all student housing regardless of whether it took advantage of these exemptions or not. and finally, we question the timing of this proposal because before a single unit of new housing -- student housing is built, the city already appears ready to impose more process on a project we all agree is in terribly short supply. for these reasons, we don't think it's unfair to ask that a wider discussion be held among the many stakeholder groups, especially including the schools and people -- parties that might be interested in building housing that would be subject to this, to have an opportunity to offer their views. i've heard personally from san francisco art institute, california college of arts, and u.c. hastings and no one has ever asked them what their
1:33am
views on new reporting requirements were. i think it's not unfair to ask for a continuance. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. dan from tan with rubin and junius. i'm a member of the action housing coalition and also represent panorama interest that will be beforehand you with the first student housing project developed under the student ordinance. i'm very happy to have participated in developing this new program. we think it's going to be a good one, a very successful one. it was certainly developed through a very transparent and open process where everybody really had an opportunity to vet it, to consider the issues, to weigh in. we haven't been given that opportunity on this -- on this reporting requirement. even after a very cursory look,
1:34am
it seems that there are some problems. again, as tim said, the timing is odd. the first student housing project hasn't even come out of the ground yet and already we're going to have three layers of reporting requirements related to student housing. institutional master plans, the planning code sections that i just handed out to you that are overseen by both the planning department and the mayor's office of housing, and now this new ordinance. it seems -- it seems more than a little excessive given where we are. we think the existing monitoring program is a robust one. at the very least, all of the reporting requirements should be integrated into a single planning code section without any internal conflicts. for example, right now if this ordinance were passed as proposed, you'd have conflicting dates when the reports get submitted. you'd have conflicting -- you'd
1:35am
have conflicting rules about when you have to declare that you're converting -- it really is not ready for prime time. we would like the opportunity to work with the supervisor's office some more and come back to you for a recommendation on a product that is actually ready for you to consider. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. caroline [speaker not understood] with [speaker not understood]. i'm here on behalf of usf regarding this legislation. we have some serious concerns about it and we would really appreciate a continuance on this matter. that being said, i understand that you may not continue so i'd like to make a few limited comments. the stated purpose of this legislation is to monitor the conversion of student housing to nonstudent housing use. so, that beg the question of
1:36am
under what circumstances would the planning department need to be aware of that type of conversion. and i think the staff did a great job of pointing out there are only three limited circumstances. one is with the exemption from inclusionary housing requirements is taken advantage of. the other is the f.a.r. bonus, but that's only available in two of the c3 voting districts. -- zoning districts. the other is the exemption from the dwelling unit mixed requirement. that is a limited number of zoning districts as well. and i do appreciate that supervisor kim's office is clarifying the intent of the legislation in that regard, but quite frankly that's not the way it's currently drafted. a few other things i want to be clear as to what the legislation currently requires. it requires every entity that owns, operates or controls student housing to file an annual report with very extensive and proprietary information about all of its student housing, including
1:37am
existing student housing and on-campus student housing regardless of whether any new student housing is proposed. obviously that's overly broad and quite frankly seems unnecessary. as you are aware and as tim and dan pointed out, there are already existing reporting requirements. the imp requirements and then the very extensive requirements for reporting if a student housing project takes advantage of the inclusionary housing exemption. i believe dan handed those out to you. so, in light of that existing requirement for the inclusionary housing exemption, we would respectfully request that if this legislation move forward, that it be limited in scope, but it be limited to new student housing projects for which a dwelling unit mix exception is granted and possibly f.a.r. bonus, again, that would be limited circumstances. and that for those specific projects, the scope of the
1:38am
reporting be severely limited in scope. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student hosing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the
1:39am
annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when there is a change or when the incentive is used. i think that -- and i hope [speaker not understood] will correct me i'm wrong. i think her suggestion is that there be no requirement for an initial report either, only new projects. >> i understood what she said. and i guess i heard that the legislation as drafted would
1:40am
also call for an annual -- however, two years -- an affirmation that there had been no changes. >> correct. that would just be a letter to the department. >> okay, thank you. i have some thoughts on this. i think the intent is a good one. i think it's good to kind of get a baseline and know what you've got, you know, who has what housing. but i think we need a little more outreach in two ways. number one, to coordinate with existing laws -- because i've heard a couple of speakers say that there may be existing laws that, as part of the student housing that was recently approved, that require reporting and monitoring of the conversion to student housing that takes advantage of the three exemptions that you spoke of already. so, that's the first thing. and then i also think the outreach to different institutions wouldn't be a bad thing.
1:41am
we've heard mentioned usf, u.c. hastings, sf art institute. i haven't heard california college of arts and sciences, but i'm sure there are many, many more that would probably have some things they could bring to the table and draft something that worked in a cooperative manner. so, i'm probably in favor of a continuance. it might not have to be a long one. maybe mattious might be able to give us an idea how long you think it might take if we had a continuance to get together with these groups. if you wanted to give me some input on that, i'd be happy to have some guidance as to how long a period of time you feel you'd be able to work out the various outreach that we're talking about. * >> being unaware of your schedule, and i know that the board of supervisors will go into recess in two weeks. but i believe that to be on the
1:42am
safe side, something around mid january would probably be the safest so that there will be time both before and after the holidays to conduct those conversations. [speaker not understood]. >> great, thank you. okay, those were my main feelings. >> commissioner borden. >> yeah, i do have a question for staff. so, i do think that -- i know we're trying to monitor new housing, but this also sounds like you want to create an inventory of student housing as an overall city-wide baseline. is that something you're trying to accomplish as well? i just want to understand why because you had a lot of -- >> so, the purpose [speaker not understood] what happens when you convert student housing. that was kind of the main concern of the legislation. but we are interested in having a [speaker not understood] inventory. >> okay. i think -- i think then when you talk about it that way, you know, and i think that's where you can get some input maybe
1:43am
from the university then. i don't think they would generally have a problem with providing that information. i think obviously there might be, i don't know, statistic information about locations of housing sites that they my not want to disclose for safety or other reasons. * may not want to disclose but i think it's a reasonable desire to have that. i think it would be useful to have that as a city. i think that working with the schools about what that looks like, and then i think it became confusing because people thought the legislation was focusing on conversion of units and you're collecting inventory of other units. so, i think that that makes a lot of sense. and i really do support a lot of what staff has with -- because the issue we really do have is conversion. i mean, i know we're adding additional -- we're talking about additional reporting requirements and making sure everything is kind of cohesive. so, if it's in one planning code section obviously makes the most sense. so, any more time would help us accomplish that. i mean, i think that, you know,
1:44am
overall more information is never a bad thing as long as it's actually useful information and it's not onerous to collect it, i think it makes a lot of sense. i think one of our challenges with the student housing situation is a particular institution that does president choose -- doesn't matter how many laws you pass -- that choose to follow them anyway. but that's a whole 'nother conversation topic. thank you. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. i'm supportive of the idea of getting this baseline. i think when we were considering the student housing legislation there were only some best guesses at numbers that give us the full information we needed. i agree also obviously we should try to get it all on the same code. so, maybe planning department staff can work with supervisor kim's office on that. also i e-mailed ms. hayward on. this i think we should also try to align it with the housing inventory report that the department already puts out. so we don't have all these separate reports, that we have all the information of housing
1:45am
in one location. and i think that's -- oh, and supportive of the modifications that the department has put out today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yes, in response to some mention of the imps, that's really very calorickvy -- clonky way to get at student housing. doing it in the inventory is great. [speaker not understood]. i think extending it to mid january we're going to get the same arguments that we always get, that this legislation was pushed through during the holidays and we didn't have a time to meet and therefore we want to push it into february. so, i don't think that's going to work. and then lastly, i think that in at terms of collecting information, i don't know specifically whether the provision actually calls for pinpointing locations of student housing. * but i think some way of knowing where they are is extremely
1:46am
important, especially given a particular institution here in the city that happens to have buildings all over downtown that are currently illegal. like to make a motion to recommend approval with modifications made by the staff and also to have the staff and the supervisors office look at where there may be conflicts or other similar provisions that were handed to us. for example, there's -- there is a -- there is an annual documentation. i don't know the definition of that exactly, but that's due on december 31st of each year. so, if that could be cleaned up between the staff and the supervisor's office, i'd be comfortable in moving ahead with this today. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i'd like to move to
1:47am
continue for the reasons i stated earlier. i think that much could be gained by working cooperatively with the institutions. and also working with the city staff to eliminate any duplicitous parts of the legislation. and i'd be willing to go january 24th, which would be towards the latter part of january with somewhat often used argument things can't be done over the holidays. you'der have most of the month of january in addition to all of the month of december to do it. so, that would be my motion to continue. >> second it. >> commissioner moore. >> i just wanted to comment that the institutional master plan and where they stand would not give us any real tools to compare apples and apples. and i think this legislation as it is in front of us passed today, it might add another
1:48am
provision to add criteria which ultimately properly executed institutional master plans would have a chapter which becomes consistent for all institutional master plans. so, that indeed, we have a library of comparing the same set of data with each other. i think this is a great opportunity to start having an order reporting system. it does go hand in hand with other attempts on getting a better handle on housing, the housing dashboard, and on and on. i think these things layer ayev other consistently and not quite as strong and give all of us a much better ability to handle these complex and new issues. * >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree with the intent of the legislation, but i just think it would be good to talk to folks like the art institute and usf who sent us e-mails and said they haven't had a chance to review the legislation. so, i think continuing this to
1:49am
january makes sense just to dot every i and cross every t to get their input. support the continuance. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i guess i can't figure out what is so complicated and so onerous about this. it's just a reporting mechanism. we're spending more time up here talking about it and having presentations than it would take an institution to produce the report in the first place. and, so, it just doesn't make any sense to me. unless i'm missing something, i don't know. maybe i am. but -- >> commissioner moore. >> particularly some of the institutions which are being suggested as the ones who consistently present with accurate data and detail, for them it would be very easy to just put them into a form which is provided by the department to just check the numbers and the data. i don't see that a really big deal. but for those who are not, i think it might take a little bit more work. >> so, my thought is that i think this does potentially add to some good data to create a
1:50am
baseline going forward and comparing current day to maybe five years, ten years from now and be able to forecast where our student housing needs are or where they're deficient, what areas geographically. so, i understand that the goal is quite clear and in front of us. i think a little more time, giving additional thought, getting input from those institutions that are currently operating housing or maybe will be adding housing will help us get better data to move forward. but i understand your, you know, -- how you see it as black and white right now and the importance of t. but i think a little more time getting input will give us a better product. i think in the future if you want to use that data, the better product and the better product out. i think it's worth a come of weeks. commissioner borden. >> i just wanted to say just the fact that even in the motion we had a lot of lack of clarity about what we really wanted to ask for.
1:51am
i have been a lot with maya aluminum nigh organization and i chair it here in the area. i know there is a lot of other reporting requirements institutions have to deal with at the state and federal level for accreditation, for financial aid and other services. so, while it may not seem like a big deal, it may not seem on its face to be a big deal. institutions i respect, not ones i don't respect. when institutions i respect ask me that this is something that they just want to spend a little more time on, i don't think what you're hearing from anyone is a lack of desire to provide the information, at least among the peaedv l that have made a statement again, but more a better understanding how they can accurately report the information that we want and make it just all aligned in the simplistic sort of way. that is the only reason i'm supportive of the continuance. >> commissioner antonini. >> the argument for me came from one of the a forenamed institutions who called me and said they hadn't heard anything about it. and he said that they don't
1:52am
have a particular officer that does monitoring of all the elected bodies or appointed bodies in san francisco. he thought there was nothing wrong with the idea, but he really wanted to be able to have some input. and i think the outreach is a good thing. it probably isn't bad to get some -- bring them to the table. they may make a better piece of legislation than is originally drafted. >> commissioner moore. >> i could probably [speaker not understood] the one comment i took issue with, this is an extra attempt for convoluting and making requirement. i think it is actually a very clear signal for starting something anew with i student housing is. and i think it in the long run it will be greatly appreciated to create a consistent record from the very beginning because we now have many things that we're trying to retrofit data which are almost impossible to capture. with everything being electronic, you don't have to basically walk down to city
1:53am
hall and file your report. this is all filling out a form and sending it off. with pdf and encryption, everything can be confidential because it only goes to one a address and be properly evaluated which those data confidential are not falling into any kind of unwanted hands. i see that as a very progressive forward looking thing, but i am prepared to consider it being extended. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second to adopt the resolution with modifications. however, the motion to continue takes precedence and so we'll take that matter up first. on the motion to continue to january 24th, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> i would just be surprised if this commission gets into the level of detail that everyone's been talking about that is going to result in talking to the institutions. that kind of thing really takes
1:54am
place after the ordinance is passed and the forms are created and then the real discussion takes place with the institution as to what goes in and out and whether it's appropriate or not appropriate. no. >> commissioner wu. >> aye. >> commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. commissioners, it will place you on item 14, case no. 2012.09 50 t and z, amendments to the planning code to establish the difficult viz dare owe neighborhood commercial district. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, department staff. the item before you is an ordinance proposed by supervisor olague to create a neighborhood commercial district along divisadero street from haight to o'farrell. stephanie tucker from supervisor olague's office is here to speak about the proposed ordinance. then after she speaks i'll
1:55am
continue with my presentation. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephanie tucker, legislative aide to supervisor christina olague. we're here today to ask for your approval for amendments to divisadero street. this conversation at the beginning of last year. we had several concerns from the community about small businesses and growth as well as concerns around -- from the surrounding community. but essentially, the divisadero street is becoming a very popular commercial district, very similar to a lot of other commercial districts like the upper haight and upper fillmore. so, it made sense that now we would create a new commercial district that would help guide the growth and make sure that we get small businesses that are serving communities in that
1:56am
area and controls that the community would like to see to make sure that that -- it grows in the way the community [speaker not understood]. so, today we are asking for your approval. if you have any questions, i'm here to answer them. thank you. >> so, the zoning code has two different commercial districts. nc1, n c-2, nc3. there is also named neighborhood commercial districts such as the castro and ncd, upper fillmore ncd and the polk street. rezoning properties along divisadero street from n c-2 to a newly created named commercial district called the divisadero street ncd. for the most part, the new divisadero street ncd maintains the n c-2 zoning controls, however, there are some notable changes. the ordinance removes the minimum parking controls and
1:57am
replaces them with maximum parking controls. it allows the 5 foot height bonus for active ground floor uses and 40 x zoning or height districts. it allows bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, other entertainment, philanthropyic administrative services and trade shops on the second floor of buildings with no prior residential use. the ordinance also removes the divisadero street alcohol restricted use district, but maintains the prohibition on liquor stores in the new ncd, the street would have a named ncd. this restricted use district is no longer necessary because you can just outright prohibit liquor stores. staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following modifications. one would be to include all n c-2 zoneded parcels located on blocks that front on divisadero street, not just lots that front on divisadero street. this would ensure that all
1:58am
neighborhood commercial zoned properties along divisadero are in the immediate vicinity would be included in the new zoning district. to reinstate the good neighbor policies for general and specialty grocery stores which was inadvertently removed when the ordinance was drafted and modify the ordinance so that bars, restaurants, limited restaurants, movie theaters, philanthropic and trade shops are permitted on the second floor so long as they are not displacing an existing residential unit. instead allowing them only in spaces where there was no prior residential unit. staff is also recommending that the definition for philanthropic administrative services be amended to remove conflicting and unnecessary provisions in the language and several other clerical changes that only are in here because they are -- the ordinance is changing that section of the code. that concludes my presentation and i'm also happy to answer
1:59am
questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any board committee on this item? -- is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner borden? >> i support the presentation. i think we ought to name more of our commercial corridor districts and really reign in the controls in a way that's -- that makes sense for that corridor and allow those corridorses to set the rules they like. that is one of the challenges with the nc1, 2 and 3 classifications. so, with that i move to approve with the modifications. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe